Meaningful campaign finance reform
By Gregory J. Hand
web posted February 4, 2002
The word 'Enron,' now both a noun and a verb (as in to Enron
someone or something; i.e. cheat them), has now become
synonymous with a corrupt political climate in need of
'meaningful' campaign finance reform, not to mention a
coordinated assault on private enterprise. This is no accident.
The Democrats, who are scared senseless over Bush's continued
high approval numbers, will do just about anything short of lying;
well, maybe not that; to use Enron to attack the Bush
administration.
Of course Enron's implosion, despite being the obsession of the
leftist Washington press, has nothing to do with the Bush
Administration, even if Ken Lay and George W. Bush were both
from Texas and probably shook hands on more than one
occasion. The scandal to Democrats and the press is that there is
no scandal that they can uncover, despite often heroic attempts
to do so. It seems that for all Enron's tossing money around like
a Democrat looking to buy a new voting block, the only
difference being that Democrats use other people's money, there
has not been one revelation of their getting anything in return.
Speaking of bankruptcy scandals and influence peddling, the
other recent 'scandal' of sorts is that of Global Crossing Ltd.,
which recently filed a bankruptcy of its own (the fourth largest in
history), this after placing 29th among the biggest political donors
of 2001 with $724,000 in contributions. In fact, during the
1999-2000 election cycle Global Crossing donated more than
$2.8 million in soft money, political action committee money and
individual contributions, 84 times what it gave during the 1997-
98 election cycle. Said Holly Bailey, a researcher for the Center
for Responsive Politics, a Washington advocacy group, "They
just came out of nowhere and... began flashing a lot of money all
over town."
According to the Center, in an irony fitting Washington politics, it
seems that Global Crossing's largest benefactor was none other
than Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, who received
$31,000 in 1999. Why is this important? The push for
'meaningful' campaign finance reform, an oxymoron of there ever
was one, is being spearheaded by the very same John 'The
Maverick' McCain. He was, to refresh the reader, caught in an
embarrassing campaign scandal of his own some years back as a
member of the Keating Five. As a result he has subsequently
become a leading convert for a need to reform the system, much
like the Clintons were after they were caught accepting massive
amounts of illegal campaign contributions. It never ceases to
amaze how the guilty find salvation after getting caught.
McCain was not the only politician to receive benefits from
Global Crossing, although among the two most interesting
contributions were these: Former President George Bush made a
speech on behalf of Global Crossing in 1998, and accepted an
estimated 230,000 shares instead of an $80,000 speaking fee.
At the company's stock high, the shares were worth
approximately $14 million, something that the Washington press
is having a field day reporting. What has yet to be determined,
much less investigated or reported is whether Bush actually
cashed out at that level, or is still holding now worthless stock.
What is not getting much press coverage is that the Democratic
National Committee chairman, the boorish Terry McAuliffe,
used his connections to become an early investor in the
company, netting a windfall of just under $18 million when he
sold most of his shares in 1999. McAuliffe, interestingly enough,
among many dim-witted statements of questionable truth, had the
nerve to say this about the Enron mess: "The people out there
who are hurt the most are the small people, and once again the
wealthy special interests got to take their money off the table,
and that's what we need to investigate." It redefines hypocrisy.
Global Crossing also had ties to the Clinton Administration,
unlike the alleged Enron-Bush connection that has yet to be
unearthed. McAuliffe, after cashing out his multimillion dollar
payout, arranged for Global Crossing Chairman Gary Winnick to
play golf with President Clinton. Winnick subsequently gave the
Clinton library $1 million. Also involving the Clintons, according
to a Drudge Report exclusive, "Last summer the Bush
Administration canceled a Defense Department contract valued
up to $400 million with the soon-to-be bankrupt GLOBAL
CROSSING after questions were raised about the bidding
process -- a process top-level GOP insiders now suggest was
sweetened by players from the previous [Clinton] administration!
" Marc Rich got a pardon for his ex-wife Denise's contributions.
Why should Global Crossing not get a Defense Department
contract?
To dwell on either Enron or Global Crossing is to miss the point.
The stupidity of the situation lies not in the appearance of
impropriety, which seems omnipresent. It is that politicians who
complain about the corruption of the system via these
contributions are, in many cases, the ones who profit the most.
McCain, as sited above, enriched his campaign war chest with
Global Crossing money while sanctimoniously complaining about
the 'special interests.'
Democrats are no better, even if they complain the loudest.
According to a Fox News story, "According to Federal
Elections Commission filing reports, five Democratic committee
chairmen, several with presidential ambitions, managed to take in
a combined sum of more than $13.5 million last year." Among
the biggest winners was Max Baucus of Montana, chairman of
the Senate Finance Committee, who raised more than $2.8
million last year, half a million of which came in June, the month
after Democrats took control of the Senate after Jim Jeffords
claimed to have rediscovered his conscience. Furthermore,
Baucus added another roughly $1.4 million from July through
December. It certainly pays to be in control of a powerful Senate
committee.
What very few people understand, at least in Washington, is that
it is the politicians' very behavior which drives the current system.
The fact that those in Washington feel the need to regulate as
much of peoples' lives as they can get away with creates a
structure in which businesses and other 'special interests' are
practically forced to contribute heavily to have a say in what
Congress is planning. Who could blame them? In an environment
where government dictates to the level it does, what sane person
would not want to have input into how these decision are made?
Who would be dumb enough to willingly surrender to this
Congress besides the 'give me more entitlements' crowd?
The only way to end the current system of the 'appearance' of
buying influence is to end the need for these donations in the first
place. In other words, end the massive regulatory system put in
place over the last half century and give back to the people the
freedom that they deserve. If Congress were better able to
control its need to micromanage the citizens it rules, there would
be no influence to buy, hence the end to campaign contributions
designed to buy access. Suffocate the demand by ending the
supply.
That, unfortunately, will never happen. Our Congress is an
imperial one, whose only concerns are staying in office and the
augmentation of their power, which only happens by taking
control away from the people who, at least in theory, are the
ones who grant it in the first place. Power, unlike wealth, is a
zero sum game, and regrettably is one in which Congress intends
on winning.
Gregory J. Hand is a political and social commentator whose
weekly columns disclose his personal passion for conservative
issues. His columns appear regularly at NewsCorridor,
OpinioNet, and Ether Zone, and he is also a contributing writer
with Enter Stage Right. He has a B.A. in Economics from
Wofford College. You can view the complete catalog of all of his
works on GregoryHand.com, and can reach him at
ghand@gregoryhand.com.
Enter Stage Right - http://www.enterstageright.com